ArticleEye and brain2021
Artifactual Visual Field Defects Identified on Technically "Reliable" Visual Field Studies in a Neuro-Ophthalmology Practice.
Article in Eye and brain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the reliability of automated visual field studies with neurological abnormalities and normal reliability indices that were inconsistent with the remainder of the neuro-ophthalmic assessment.
methodsRetrospective observational study from the clinical practice of a neuro-ophthalmologist at a tertiary referral center.
resultsFrom 2230 patient charts, ten cases were identified that met the inclusion criteria. In eight of the cases repeat visual field testing had no reproducible abnormality. Four of these cases were concerning for a bitemporal or homonymous hemianopia. None of the patients, including the two cases with a reproducible defect, developed any convincing manifestations of an organic disease related to the visual field defect.
conclusionOur findings suggest that even marked neurological abnormalities on reliable automated visual field tests can be false. When the remainder of the neuro-ophthalmic evaluation is inconsistent with the test result, we recommend that clinicians attempt to immediately repeat the visual field study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.